I actually built my own antenna to replace a set of rabbit ears, although the rabbit ears and the antenna that replaced them resides in the attic. Maybe I'm just too old and have too much to do to pay for any TV.
I'm somewhat scared that people have never had to use a wrench to fix anything. Most of the self-respecting geeks I know are also gearheads...
No one is a musician any more? Microphones are unknown to most people? I agree...What Universe is this tool living in?
I take my damaged/unusable hard drives into a field and shoot holes in them, repeatedly. Effective and fun. You can even invite co-workers to help. Shooting hard drives is also a good way to use my old battle rifles.:)
Apple has indeed caught up to most other low-end server vendors as far as hardware features goes. You can get an XServe with redundant power supplies now! They've even got a rack kit that isn't an absolute nightmare! They have LOM! You can option the machines with a RAID controller, but in our case we just reinstalled on to a software RAID mirror set up by Disk Utility. Their hardware is nowhere near anything special (although their one-piece drive sleds work decently), but it's nice to see that they're at least trying on the hardware front. If they did the same on the software front they might have something.
All of this stuff is present (and the RAID controller is available) for the Intel XServe I'm using now. It wasn't (except I think you could purchase a RAID controller) for the G4 XServe it replaced. I believe some of these features showed up in the G5 XServes.
My favorite new feature that Apple added to the XServe hardware? Link LEDs on their network interfaces.
The hardware isn't "slick." It's finally "not awful."
Oh, trust me, I wouldn't be using this thing if it weren't for my boss being a True Believer. At least I've managed to persuade him to let me run the web stuff on a FreeBSD VM (through VMWare Fusion, unfortunately, instead of a product I don't have to be logged in to use)...We needed PHP compiled with Oracle support and the FreeBSD stuff is just so much easier to manage than the Apple stuff once you get outside the box.
As someone that's cursed to administer an OS X Server machine, I have nothing good to say about Apple in general and OS X Server in particular. Apple's history of patching---or, in this case, not patching---stuff has been lukewarm at best and downright abysmal at worst. The Server 10.5.3 update introduced something that causes ClamAV to crash/reboot a Server machine when mail is turned on (since ClamAV is on by default. Nice one. They've had other stellar examples of their extreme lack of QA for their Server software, such as updating their included PHP to a version that was known to break Squirrelmail (the default webmail that comes with OS X Server), even though a fix had been available for months from the PHP maintainers.
I'm a huge fan of FreeBSD. I have been doing this OS X Server thing for more than two years now. I went in to it with an open mind, hoping that Apple wouldn't screw things up too badly. I was disappointed. The only things I've learned is that their Server QA is awful, they don't actually use their own Server software internally, their customer service is horrible when it comes to their Server stuff and their Server documentation is awful. I could rant about that for several pages. All of this leads me to believe that Apple really doesn't want to do well in the "server" segment of the market...Which is really too bad, cause they've finally got the hardware side of it to the point where there's not much separating them from most other low-end server vendors.
Now, that I've got that all that off my chest, Apple's dropped the ball on the BIND update. This is not surprising. Anyone that's administered OS X Server for any length of time probably feels the same way. It's so bad that I will suppress my OS X experience next time I am in the job market again; I hope to never work with OS X (particularly as a server) again and will do everything in my power to avoid doing so. I'm batting a thousand on persuading people interested in using OS X Server to use anything else...Apple really has to get things together or get out of the "server" market.
There's lots of left-handed firearms; you just have to know where to look. Lots of modern semi-auto pistols these days are ambidextrous, and the ones that aren't generally can have ambi safeties/slide releases/decockers. The only thing that's hard to get on some models is an ambi magazine release. Ambidextrous semi-auto pistols will most likely still kick brass to the right, but that's not a big concern. Savage makes a wide selection of left-handed, bolt-action rifles and Stag makes left-handed AR-15s. I believe that Savage produces more left-handed firearms than anyone else out there.
I'm not the one slinging personal insults...I guess that's the refuge for people that don't like what they're seeing and can't just admit they're wrong.
A few smaller dictionaries do have it printed your way, but they are the vast minority. I've never seen it "in the wild" spelled the way you think is correct...But hey, whatever fucks your fingers...Or something.
Nothing in the first several pages of a google search for "Daylight Saving Time" (or even "Daylight-Saving Time") mentions anything about "Daylight-Saving Time" as an alternate spelling.
No, it's not Daylight-Saving Time. Nothing I've found online seems to indicate that Daylight-Saving time is the correct name for DST. Also, none of the dictionaries I've looked at (including m-w.com and others) state that "Daylight Savings Time" is valid.
Next?
Why not? People keep saying it wrong. Very few people say (or type) it correctly. Why did you bother responding if my initial post wasn't that big of a deal?
It's Daylight Saving Time, not Daylight Savings Time.
Don't focus on microbenchmarks.
on
The Case for FreeBSD
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Scott has several good points. FreeBSD still has the same level of polish, the same amount of "professional" feel as it always has and it's just as consistent as before. The documentation is fabulous, Netgraph can do a lot of neat tricks, GEOM handles storage pretty well, vendor support is improving, etc.
However, I think the most important one is discovered if you read between the lines: "don't focus on microbenchmarks."
Unfortunately, one of the only things that's going to force most ISPs to start caring about the amount of spam coming from machines living on their netblocks is going to be the ISP's providers threatening to cut the lower-tier ISPs off if the lower-tier ISPs don't do something about their spam problems.
I used to be completely against ISPs blocking port 25 from non-MX machines to the outside world. Unfortunately, I've had to change my opinion. The vast majority of the spam that ends up in my spam mailbox (thanks, SpamAssassin and procmail!) and the mailboxes of my users comes from zombied/trojaned machines on residential, always-on internet connections (read, cable and DSL). Most of the e-mail gets tagged properly by SA, however if the ISPs themselves blocked outbound e-mail not relayed through the ISP's mail machines, things would work out much more nicely, the total volume of e-mail hitting other MTAs would drop, etc. There would be much rejoicing.
SPF is nifty, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem...It just allows for easier identification of mail that's coming from machines it shouldn't come from, etc. Actually getting lots of ISPs to adopt SPF is proving to be a slow process as well.
In short, ISPs aren't going to do anything to fix the problem unless they have to. Buying a few more boxes to handle the e-mail load (a huge generalization, but you get the idea) of the rampant spam is less of a problem for them than actually sorting out their mail systems to help fix the problem. A good place to start would be some method of making the top-tier connection providers responsible.
My uncle is an oculoplastic surgeon, both pediatric and adult. He's pretty good...He's done some major work to my eyes and I trust him (obviously).
I asked him about corrective laser surgery, radial keratotomy and the like a few years ago, before I was considering having eye surgery myself. His opinion is that if you're vision is fine with corrective lenses, don't bother with it. If that surgery is more or less a "cosmetic" thing, he would advise you to reconsider, cause it's not worth altering a healthy eye, even if the effects are "minimal," according to some people.
The government looked in to how hard it would be for people to cull together a working nuclear weapon design from available information years ago.
"Interestingly enough, the United States government conducted a controlled experiment called the Nth Country Experiment to see how much effort was actually required to develop a viable fission weapon design starting from nothing. In this experiment, which ended on 10 April 1967, three newly graduated physics students were given the task of developing a detailed weapon design using only public domain information. The project reached a successful conclusion, that is, they did develop a viable design (detailed in the classified report UCRL-50248) after expending only three man-years of effort over two and a half calendar years. In the years since, much more information has entered the public domain so that the level of effort required has obviously dropped further."
Was fairly decent overall. He seems to hit most of the high points and picks up on some of the problems FreeBSD has (like the third-party, end-user hardware support not being stellar). However, I disagree with his railing on other packaging systems...Ok, granted, RPM has been the bane of my existence a few times, but I've never really had any major problems with apt or portage.
The author didn't really mention how "modular" FreeBSD is. Almost anything that's in the base system (sendmail, bind8, OpenSSH, etc.) can be "turned off" (in/etc/rc.conf) in the base system (or not built at all with options in/etc/make.conf) and alternatives from the ports system can be used. Don't like sendmail? I don't see why not, but fine, you can run qmail, postfix or whatever MTA you want.
I also disagree with most of the "Developer Recommendations" at the end of the article. Mailing lists are good; don't bog down the hardware with forums when anyone with half a brain can Google for information on the lists. Hardware support? Contact your vendors! Kernel options? Once you learn where they are, you're set. Don't put everything under the Sun in the GENERIC kernel config; you're just going to obfuscate the options most everyday users will want. As far as putting a commented-out IPFW line in the kernel, why IPFW? Personally I prefer IPF; limiting the choices by "endorsing" IPFW is not a good thing.
I do agree with the author on his last two recommendations. X configuration should be done outside/stand/sysinstall and send-pr is rather obtuse for most people to use.
I'm still not sure why people are so hot to review 5.x releases without a -STABLE branch being around. Once there's a -STABLE, then and only then can you really get a true picture of how 5.x is going to be due to stabilization of features, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually built my own antenna to replace a set of rabbit ears, although the rabbit ears and the antenna that replaced them resides in the attic. Maybe I'm just too old and have too much to do to pay for any TV.
I'm somewhat scared that people have never had to use a wrench to fix anything. Most of the self-respecting geeks I know are also gearheads... No one is a musician any more? Microphones are unknown to most people? I agree...What Universe is this tool living in?
I take my damaged/unusable hard drives into a field and shoot holes in them, repeatedly. Effective and fun. You can even invite co-workers to help. Shooting hard drives is also a good way to use my old battle rifles. :)
Apple has indeed caught up to most other low-end server vendors as far as hardware features goes. You can get an XServe with redundant power supplies now! They've even got a rack kit that isn't an absolute nightmare! They have LOM! You can option the machines with a RAID controller, but in our case we just reinstalled on to a software RAID mirror set up by Disk Utility. Their hardware is nowhere near anything special (although their one-piece drive sleds work decently), but it's nice to see that they're at least trying on the hardware front. If they did the same on the software front they might have something.
All of this stuff is present (and the RAID controller is available) for the Intel XServe I'm using now. It wasn't (except I think you could purchase a RAID controller) for the G4 XServe it replaced. I believe some of these features showed up in the G5 XServes.
My favorite new feature that Apple added to the XServe hardware? Link LEDs on their network interfaces.
The hardware isn't "slick." It's finally "not awful."
Oh, trust me, I wouldn't be using this thing if it weren't for my boss being a True Believer. At least I've managed to persuade him to let me run the web stuff on a FreeBSD VM (through VMWare Fusion, unfortunately, instead of a product I don't have to be logged in to use)...We needed PHP compiled with Oracle support and the FreeBSD stuff is just so much easier to manage than the Apple stuff once you get outside the box.
As someone that's cursed to administer an OS X Server machine, I have nothing good to say about Apple in general and OS X Server in particular. Apple's history of patching---or, in this case, not patching---stuff has been lukewarm at best and downright abysmal at worst. The Server 10.5.3 update introduced something that causes ClamAV to crash/reboot a Server machine when mail is turned on (since ClamAV is on by default. Nice one. They've had other stellar examples of their extreme lack of QA for their Server software, such as updating their included PHP to a version that was known to break Squirrelmail (the default webmail that comes with OS X Server), even though a fix had been available for months from the PHP maintainers.
I'm a huge fan of FreeBSD. I have been doing this OS X Server thing for more than two years now. I went in to it with an open mind, hoping that Apple wouldn't screw things up too badly. I was disappointed. The only things I've learned is that their Server QA is awful, they don't actually use their own Server software internally, their customer service is horrible when it comes to their Server stuff and their Server documentation is awful. I could rant about that for several pages. All of this leads me to believe that Apple really doesn't want to do well in the "server" segment of the market...Which is really too bad, cause they've finally got the hardware side of it to the point where there's not much separating them from most other low-end server vendors.
Now, that I've got that all that off my chest, Apple's dropped the ball on the BIND update. This is not surprising. Anyone that's administered OS X Server for any length of time probably feels the same way. It's so bad that I will suppress my OS X experience next time I am in the job market again; I hope to never work with OS X (particularly as a server) again and will do everything in my power to avoid doing so. I'm batting a thousand on persuading people interested in using OS X Server to use anything else...Apple really has to get things together or get out of the "server" market.
There's lots of left-handed firearms; you just have to know where to look. Lots of modern semi-auto pistols these days are ambidextrous, and the ones that aren't generally can have ambi safeties/slide releases/decockers. The only thing that's hard to get on some models is an ambi magazine release. Ambidextrous semi-auto pistols will most likely still kick brass to the right, but that's not a big concern. Savage makes a wide selection of left-handed, bolt-action rifles and Stag makes left-handed AR-15s. I believe that Savage produces more left-handed firearms than anyone else out there.
Sure, it "seems" to deserve one, but it's already been codified (in to law) without one.
...Daylight Saving Time, not Daylight Savings Time...
I'm not the one slinging personal insults...I guess that's the refuge for people that don't like what they're seeing and can't just admit they're wrong.
M-W's opinion on the matter...
A few smaller dictionaries do have it printed your way, but they are the vast minority. I've never seen it "in the wild" spelled the way you think is correct...But hey, whatever fucks your fingers...Or something.
Nothing in the first several pages of a google search for "Daylight Saving Time" (or even "Daylight-Saving Time") mentions anything about "Daylight-Saving Time" as an alternate spelling.
No, it's not Daylight-Saving Time. Nothing I've found online seems to indicate that Daylight-Saving time is the correct name for DST. Also, none of the dictionaries I've looked at (including m-w.com and others) state that "Daylight Savings Time" is valid. Next?
Why not? People keep saying it wrong. Very few people say (or type) it correctly. Why did you bother responding if my initial post wasn't that big of a deal?
It's Daylight Saving Time, not Daylight Savings Time.
Scott has several good points. FreeBSD still has the same level of polish, the same amount of "professional" feel as it always has and it's just as consistent as before. The documentation is fabulous, Netgraph can do a lot of neat tricks, GEOM handles storage pretty well, vendor support is improving, etc. However, I think the most important one is discovered if you read between the lines: "don't focus on microbenchmarks."
Unfortunately, one of the only things that's going to force most ISPs to start caring about the amount of spam coming from machines living on their netblocks is going to be the ISP's providers threatening to cut the lower-tier ISPs off if the lower-tier ISPs don't do something about their spam problems.
I used to be completely against ISPs blocking port 25 from non-MX machines to the outside world. Unfortunately, I've had to change my opinion. The vast majority of the spam that ends up in my spam mailbox (thanks, SpamAssassin and procmail!) and the mailboxes of my users comes from zombied/trojaned machines on residential, always-on internet connections (read, cable and DSL). Most of the e-mail gets tagged properly by SA, however if the ISPs themselves blocked outbound e-mail not relayed through the ISP's mail machines, things would work out much more nicely, the total volume of e-mail hitting other MTAs would drop, etc. There would be much rejoicing.
SPF is nifty, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem...It just allows for easier identification of mail that's coming from machines it shouldn't come from, etc. Actually getting lots of ISPs to adopt SPF is proving to be a slow process as well.
In short, ISPs aren't going to do anything to fix the problem unless they have to. Buying a few more boxes to handle the e-mail load (a huge generalization, but you get the idea) of the rampant spam is less of a problem for them than actually sorting out their mail systems to help fix the problem. A good place to start would be some method of making the top-tier connection providers responsible.
Beagle cratered.
:)
Beagle2 cratered.
Spirit captured the flag!
Opportunity captured the flag!
Genesis cratered.
I think NASA is still in the lead.
My uncle is an oculoplastic surgeon, both pediatric and adult. He's pretty good...He's done some major work to my eyes and I trust him (obviously). I asked him about corrective laser surgery, radial keratotomy and the like a few years ago, before I was considering having eye surgery myself. His opinion is that if you're vision is fine with corrective lenses, don't bother with it. If that surgery is more or less a "cosmetic" thing, he would advise you to reconsider, cause it's not worth altering a healthy eye, even if the effects are "minimal," according to some people.
"Hello, we have a collect call from 'Beagle 2', will you accept the charges?"
The government looked in to how hard it would be for people to cull together a working nuclear weapon design from available information years ago.
"Interestingly enough, the United States government conducted a controlled experiment called the Nth Country Experiment to see how much effort was actually required to develop a viable fission weapon design starting from nothing. In this experiment, which ended on 10 April 1967, three newly graduated physics students were given the task of developing a detailed weapon design using only public domain information. The project reached a successful conclusion, that is, they did develop a viable design (detailed in the classified report UCRL-50248) after expending only three man-years of effort over two and a half calendar years. In the years since, much more information has entered the public domain so that the level of effort required has obviously dropped further."
From The Nuclear Weapon Archive: a Guide to Nuclear Weapons
That was back in 1967, a bit more than thirty-six years ago. It probably takes a lot less digging nowadays.
I'm betting it'll drift around for a while, then be discovered by machines from the machine planet. Of course, we all know what happens after that.
Was fairly decent overall. He seems to hit most of the high points and picks up on some of the problems FreeBSD has (like the third-party, end-user hardware support not being stellar). However, I disagree with his railing on other packaging systems...Ok, granted, RPM has been the bane of my existence a few times, but I've never really had any major problems with apt or portage.
The author didn't really mention how "modular" FreeBSD is. Almost anything that's in the base system (sendmail, bind8, OpenSSH, etc.) can be "turned off" (in /etc/rc.conf) in the base system (or not built at all with options in /etc/make.conf) and alternatives from the ports system can be used. Don't like sendmail? I don't see why not, but fine, you can run qmail, postfix or whatever MTA you want.
I also disagree with most of the "Developer Recommendations" at the end of the article. Mailing lists are good; don't bog down the hardware with forums when anyone with half a brain can Google for information on the lists. Hardware support? Contact your vendors! Kernel options? Once you learn where they are, you're set. Don't put everything under the Sun in the GENERIC kernel config; you're just going to obfuscate the options most everyday users will want. As far as putting a commented-out IPFW line in the kernel, why IPFW? Personally I prefer IPF; limiting the choices by "endorsing" IPFW is not a good thing.
I do agree with the author on his last two recommendations. X configuration should be done outside /stand/sysinstall and send-pr is rather obtuse for most people to use.
I'm still not sure why people are so hot to review 5.x releases without a -STABLE branch being around. Once there's a -STABLE, then and only then can you really get a true picture of how 5.x is going to be due to stabilization of features, etc.
This was the perfect job for the new Macs. They won't tip over like everyday, garden-variety, mid-tower PCs.